I just strolled over to Jo Nova’s blog again and couldn’t help but chuckle. She’s found a write-up that she’s titled, “Science in an echo chamber” (see it here). It just oozes bias and quite open contempt for climate science. It makes you think…
If scientists highlight the arguments that go on between various research papers, the deniers are quick to scream that there is no consensus.
If scientists sign a letter confirming that this is an unwarranted attack and papers are published that demonstrate that the majority of research by more experienced scientists concur that human activity is contributing to climate change, deniers scream that science isn’t done through consensus and suggest that this demonstrates conspiracy and/or a buddy system.
It’s far from a level playing field, is it? Indeed it makes clearer the divide between science and anti-science.
If Jo’s heroes had anything important to contribute, they would be taken seriously. Only people like Jo take them seriously because they confirm her already set beliefs. There is no climate change orthodoxy Jo, but a number of reasons why this warming trend is obviously the result of an increasing greenhouse effect and that we are somewhat responsible through pumping out millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. Scorn can’t make it otherwise. Air conditioners aren’t confusing us. Bio-physical indicators are already showing that this temperature change over time is having an impact.
We clearly should be worried.
No, science is not in an echo chamber, but unfortunately scientists are raising their voices against this propaganda. I feel that Jo should get her hearing checked.